Mitt Romney Honorably Suspends His Campaign...

Well it was gut wrenching for me to hear it, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh's show when he announced it. Romney is correct, we are a nation at war and we need to defeat the democrat candidates who are all about the US losing. uhg I wish people would have seen the great tings Mitt can do sooner, but as it has been rumored, there is always 2012.

This site will still be around and will be updated from time to time. I still fervently believe Mitt Romney will make an outstanding president and lead this country to even greater heights.

Karl

THE FAITH TO TRY, and THE WILLINGNESS TO SERVE

By: Jebee Kenji Solis


The Governor a few days ago said this regarding running for President, "This is not something I'm doing because I need or I want it desperately for myself. I believe the country could benefit from the experience I've had, but that is not what motivates me."

So what motivates Gov. Mitt Romney?

Some people at 60's with lots of money, who worked hard and save, would rather be well at the comfort of their lives, vacationing, running a charity, living life quietly.

But Mitt Romney is more than willing to get out of his comfort zone, as well as his wife Ann who had MS, as well as theirs sons who have happy lives of their own because they have faith in the American people. They have the courage to try even the prospect may not look that bright at the end part, because they have the willing heart and mind to serve.

Mitt said the following in Michigan back in September. The whole speech is worth reading, but here's a part:

"I don't have to tell you that my Dad made a mark on Michigan. And he made a mark on me. And I guess that is at the heart of things; he's a big part of why I'm running for President today. In 1957, when he was the President of American Motors, he gave a speech in which he reported the following conversation: "

'My nine year old son' – that would be me – 'came home from school and said "Mom, we really build the best cars, don't we?"' "She said, 'Why Mitt, of course we do. Why do you ask?' "

'Well, if we build the best cars, why is it that less than three percent of the people agree with us?'

"After my Dad heard of this conversation, he took me aside and said, 'Look, Mitt, size doesn't always indicate strength and popularity doesn't always indicate truth, and sales volume doesn't always indicate value.' "

And then he added: 'Right always prevails.'


What had happen the last few state primaries confirmed my fear, that instead of moving forward, we are moving backwards. Instead of choosing who the right candidate for us is, we choose someone who trampled our belief and ideals, who will abandon our dreams and aspirations.

Mitt Romney shared and is sharing himself to be a servant because he rightly believes that service to his countrymen and service to the world is a selfless act. Sometimes, when you are truly blessed, you have a burning desire to serve and bless and lift the lives of others. He doesn't want money; he already said he will donate his salary to the charity once elected president. He doesn't need fame, he is already well-known. He doesn't need honor or glory. All he wants is to make sure his grandchildren and the generation that will come after them will have a better place to live. The kind of country people look up too for goodness, justice and freedom. The kind of America that reaches out to people around the world, and serves as a beacon of hope and success.

Mark Steyn over the Corner said "This was conservatives' last chance... The only chance was for a really good conservative leader to be elected and make a Reaganesque impression on the country that would delay the liberal fate. If Romney is defeated tomorrow, that will not happen, and tomorrow will live in infamy as a monumental defeat for conservatism."

We will find out today if Americans will stands for something. I can only wait and see. The choice is ours. The choice is exclusively ours.

Limbaugh says, "One Candidate Now Stands For All Three Legs of Conservatism"

Rush Limbaugh gave a full punch monologue today explaining how Mitt Romney is the only candidate that does embody the "three pillars" of conservatism.

Now, I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that's Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.

Rush continues

So my take is, speaking for myself. I'm being honest here. All I do is tell you what I think. What you do with it is up to you. You are not mind-numbed robots as you know. I'm not a Svengali, I'm not a pied piper, and you're not lemmings running off the cliff. If I look at this roster of three candidates -- if I look at Hillary-Obama, about whom there's not a dime's worth of difference, because they're so far left it doesn't matter which one of them wins. If McCain adopts economic policies that sound very much like what you'd get from Hillary-Obama, and if I think those policies are going to take the country down the tubes I'd just as soon the Democrats take the hit for it, not us. Plain and simple.

And the coup de etat

I think that's pretty wise. I think right now Romney probably -- as the campaign has coalesced and as the campaign has progressing on down the highway -- I think the one candidate of the three still out there on our side matter (and actually it's just two, because Huckabee doesn't, in terms of a chance to win) in saying who more closely embodies all three legs of this conservative stool, you'd have to say that it's Mitt Romney. There's actually no choice in the matter. It certainly isn't Senator McCain.

Now add this to the endorsements of Sean Hanity, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Levin and a host of other conservative media hosts, all of whom are well plugged into "us" the grass roots, and it makes a very compelling case who really is the conservative candidate that can unite us and lead this country.

Mitt Romney for President!

In Ronald Reagan's words

Ronald Reagan's name have been invoked during this primary season many times on both sides of the party line. Well here is something to do. Go to this page http://www.wwrdheritage.org/Resources.aspx and watch the six videos on the right side bar, they are from President Reagan's first inaugural address. The last two are from later in his presidency.

After you've watched the videos ask yourself, "Of the candidates who wants to lower taxes?" "Who wants to increase citizens' potential by reducing government?" "Who wants to lead us into the economic future with optimism?" "Who wants to keep the nation's defense strong?" Who...and insert what you heard in the videos.

There are plenty of other questions, those are just a few, but we have candidates who have been a part of Washington for years. During that time the military decreased, taxes rose, national threats grew and more intrusions into individual freedoms enacted...and "they" were there.

As for me, I don't want someone who desires limiting free speech via legislation. I do not want someone who believes open borders is sound national and defense policy. I do not want someone who wants to interfere with capitalist economic principles under the guise of saving the environment. I do not want someone who sees forbearance as weakness. I do not want someone who will stab my conservative back for the sake of liberal policy or reaching across the aisle.

There will not be another Ronald Reagan. But there are people who espouse the conservative values he lived by. I say seek out those people and put them in office.

Karl

Post note: I found the the Heritage Foundation page with clips of President Reagan's first inauguration speech thanks to Powder Tracks' blog. His blog inspired me to create this one.

ROMNEY WINS MAINE!!!

Yes! Gov Romney was one Maine's caucus...and do you hear about it in the media any where? This is a significant win; with the 18 delegates Maine has that put Romney now at 92 delegates to McCain's 97 delegates.

Here's an excerpt form the AP story found here:

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Mitt Romney coasted to a win in presidential preference voting by Maine Republicans on Saturday, claiming his third victory in a caucus state and fourth overall.

The former Massachusetts governor had 52 percent of the vote with 68 percent of the towns holding caucuses reporting. John McCain trailed with 21 percent, Ron Paul was third with 19 percent, and Mike Huckabee had 6 percent. Undecided votes accounted for 2 percent.

The nonbinding votes, the first step toward electing 18 Maine delegates to the Republican National Convention, took place in public schools, Grange halls, fire stations and town halls across the state.

The Associated Press uses presidential preferences expressed in those caucuses to project the number of national convention delegates each candidate will have when they are chosen at Maine's state convention, calculating that Romney will wind up with all 18 delegates when all is said and done.

Campaigning in Minnesota, Romney noted that his victory in Maine came despite McCain's endorsement by the state's two U.S. senators.

This should be receiving more media attention since Romney and McCain are now just 5 delegates apart. Some I've spoke to say it's just a caucus, well Iowa is just a caucus but we heard plenty about it and its results.

Folks, Romney is not out and don't be surprised if he comes out on top.

Rally To Romney!!

I'm getting a sense of way too much "resignation" among some online Mitt supporters. In the last few days Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rick Santorum have all endorsed Romney and said that they would be voting for him. Although I wish these endorsements came earlier, it's clear that Romney is the conservative alternative to McCain (despite McCain's ads recently that call him "The True Conservative" . . . I spit out my milk when I heard that line).

I will also go on the record (again) that, should he become the nominee, I will not vote for McCain and will not encourage anyone else to vote for him either (probably not even if Romney is his VP). There are several reasons for this:

1) McCain lied about Romney's record on Iraq saying that Romney favored a "timetable for withdrawl like the Democrats." I've detailed the more-than-copious evidence that this is an outright and blatant lie here. I don't want, and we don't need, a liar as our nominee.

2) McCain has made quite a practice of "poking his finger in the eye" of conservatives. I'm guessing that he's man enough to realize and understand that many/most of us feel like returning the favor.

3) If McCain is the nominee, it's clear that, regardless which party wins, our country will have a President to the left of Bush. I don't want the GOP (and, by extension, conservatism) blamed for the ensuing mess of taking our country more to the left. Let the Democrats take the full blame of getting what they're asking for. That could be the best thing in the long run for the GOP and for conservatism.

Granted, I still am fighting and working to make sure that Romney is our nominee and not McCain. I would LOVE to be able to vote for the GOP nominee. We must all Rally to Romney!! He'll be the best President of anyone still in the game. His competence and leadership are unrivaled. People just need to wake up and realize it.

Jeff Fuller

Alabama for Mitt Romney

Braden Pace of Braden’s Take on the Matter outlines why Alabamians should vote for Romney.


The concept of a Republican governor in a Democratic state is not lost on most Alabamians.

In 2002, Alabama elected a Republican governor despite having a Democratic legislature in hopes of bringing fiscal responsibility and lower taxes to a state government plagued by the corruption of a previous administration.

That same year, the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts elected Republican Mitt Romney to be its governor with similar hopes of fiscal discipline for a state that faced a $3 billion deficit. In spite of such a daunting predicament, he managed to balance the budget in every year of his term without raising taxes.

For the past six years, Alabamians have been able to witness the progress that a Republican governor can achieve. This, among several reasons, is why Alabama should select Governor Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Despite being the governor of a northern state, Mitt Romney shares the same values that Alabamians hold dear. These values can be reflected in three major areas, which comprise what Romney calls the three legs of the Republican stool: a strong military, a strong economy, and strong families.

Since 9/11, most Americans understand the need to address Islamic terrorism on a global scale. Mitt Romney believes in achieving a safer country by increasing the size of our military and by confronting radical jihadists in the Middle East. In a state that houses the likes of Redstone Arsenal and Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabamians, like Mitt Romney understand the importance of a strong military.

There’s not a single candidate in the field this year, Republican or Democrat that has more experience in the economy than Mitt Romney. From his career as CEO of Bain Capital in Boston to his tremendous success in turning around the embattled 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, Romney knows the ins and outs of the American economy.

In Montgomery, we need only look to our own backyard for proof that Asian markets are becoming a force to be reckoned with on a global scale. While the Hyundai plant has had a positive presence in our state, it’s important to remember that it represents a growing influence on the global economy in competition with American goods and services. Mitt Romney understands that and as President, he will work to make sure America can continue to compete with Asian markets in the greater global economy.

If there’s one thing Alabamians crave, it’s lower taxes. This makes Governor Romney a perfect fit for us. His domestic agenda includes eliminating taxes on savings for middle class families, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, permanently eliminating the death tax, and making healthcare expenses tax deductible, all of which are initiatives that Alabamians long for.

As citizens of Alabama, we are known for our strong family values. Having been married for nearly forty years to his wife Ann, with whom he raised their five sons, Mitt Romney is also known for his family values. He supports a constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage as the institution of one man and one woman. He also believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned in order to let the American people decide the issue of abortion. In his career as governor of Massachusetts, he fought to ban cloning, to ban embryo farming, and to define life as beginning at conception. The Massachusetts Citizens for Life even gave Governor Romney the leadership award for his efforts in the fight to protect human life.

In a state where our motto is “We Dare Defend Our Rights,” we firmly believe in the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment. Mitt Romney strongly supports those rights as well. As a member of the National Rifle Association, he believes in the distinction between law abiding gun owners and the individuals who use firearms to commit crimes.

Based on these reasons stated above, I believe Mitt Romney would be the ideal choice for the citizens of Alabama, as well as the United States of America. I urge all conservative Alabamians to vote for Governor Romney on February 5th.

McCain...liberal?

Check out this add from the United Victory Fund. They point out a surprisingly liberal John McCain.

Denny Hastert, speaks out in favor Romney.

A Mark Levin talks with Denny Hastert. He was a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from 1987 to 2007, representing Illinois's 14th congressional district, and served as Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007. He was was the Speaker of the House during the Clinton Impeachment. He has worked with all the republican candidates save Huckabee. Importantly, he supports Romney and for some fantastic reason's. He worked with Romney during the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. He speaks of taxes and issues such as McCain-Fiengold which, as he puts it, took more money out of the Republican party yet it's funny he got the nomination.

Last point. I agree with Speaker Hastert assessment that the media is setting up McCain for a REALLY big fall if he gets the nomination.

The audio is here ,it is worth your time.

By the way, is John McCain getting back at Bush and republicans for his loss in 2004?

Its the Independents..

Looking at the exit poll data on CNN here McCain is pulling in independents and liberals and thus edging out over Romney.

By party--
Republicans:

Romney with 33% and McCain with 33% (dead heat)

Independents:

Romney with 23% and McCain with 44%

McCain didn't win among conservatives, the independents carried him.

By Ideology--

McCain Romney

Liberal					49%		24%
Moderate					43%		21%
Conservative					29%		37%

Digging a little deeper into the ideology Liberals

McCain Romney

Somewhat Liberal					55%		24%
Moderate					43%		21%
Somewhat Conserv.					35%		32%
Very Conservative					21%		44%

Moderates and liberals are helping him win delegates. McCain lost among conservatives by a wide margin. Looking at all the issues it was the liberals and non-Republicans that, once again, took the win away from Romney and gave it to McCain.

Tell me how a McCain nomination will be the representative of conservative ideas when its the same people that would vote for Hillary or Obama voting to get him elected?

Stop McCain; Rally to Romney

This was posted by Stuart Jones on 29 Jan 2008. This article says it all. The Republican party can unite behind Romney, they will not unite behind McCain

Link here

Last month, when asked if he had a preference in the primary season, a liberal Democrat friend of mine said that he did not. To him, all of the Democratic hopefuls were about the same and he could support any of them. Then asked if there was any Republican he could support, he quickly replied “well, John McCain of course.”
Conservatives have long alleged that John McCain is in the wrong party. He has led the fight for amnesty for illegal aliens and has recently joined Al Gore’s fight against global warming. McCain’s biggest supporter is the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman. On Thursday, McCain was endorsed by The New York Times and on Friday there was this from Bill Clinton: “She and John McCain are very close,” Bill Clinton said about his wife. “They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.”
In a year when the Democratic race seems to be more about style than policy differences some liberal Democrats and Independents saw a chance to hedge their bets and vote for McCain in open primaries as the Republican nominee. John McCain lost the New Hampshire primary among Republicans but finished first when the votes of Democrats and independents were added. He came in first in New Hampshire with 37% of the total vote and came in first in South Carolina with 33% of the vote, just 3% ahead of the second place finisher. To put it another way, 63% of voters voted against McCain in New Hampshire and two-thirds opposed him in South Carolina.
Yet McCain’s thin plurality in S.C. was enough for his fans in the news media to insist that he be nominated. Liberal newspapers, who typically demonize Republicans, gushed with phony concern for Republican chances in November and declared that only McCain was electable. Since when did The New York Times ever want a Republican to win an election?
In turn, most every conservative in the media, from Rush Limbaugh to Michelle Malkin to Mark Levin blasted McCain’s candidacy. Online editorials went further. Simmons of The Political Grind said “Why McCain Will Never Win”, while Billy Hollis of QandO said what a lot of Republicans have been thinking. In an “Open Letter to the Grand Old Party” he stated simply that if McCain is the nominee he, and millions of other conservatives, won’t vote for him. A McCain nomination would split the Republican party and prompt another third party candidacy, perhaps from Ron Paul or Lou Dobbs. McCain’s policies are hated by a large segment of the Republican party and no amount of appeals to party unity will change their minds. It seems likely that a majority of Republicans will oppose McCain through the convention yet he could still get the nomination.
McCain’s chance at the nomination comes from an unlikely source. In the Summer of 2007, Rudy Giuliani was the Republican frontrunner, with 30% leads in polls in New York and New Jersey. In contrast McCain’s candidacy was falling apart, due to his support of the wildly unpopular Senate amnesty bill. Giuliani allies seeking to stack the deck in his favor pushed for New York and New Jersey to be winner-take-all states. It never seemed to occur to Giuliani’s allies that he wouldn’t be the frontrunner seven months later and that instead of boosting his candidacy they could doom it. What his allies lack in fair-mindedness they make up for in unimaginativeness. The definition of “winner” in “winner take all” is dubious. Logically it would seem that a candidate would have to get a majority of the vote to win; in some states, like Alabama, that is indeed the case. After all in a democracy majority rules. But in most WTA states, like New York, New Jersey and Florida one can be a winner with a mere plurality of the vote, with no minimum on that amount. In a crowded field a candidate could get only 25% of the vote and be awarded 100% of the delegates. 75% of the voters in a state could vote against a candidate yet, if the opposition is divided among several other candidates, 25% support could translate into 100% of the delegates. Winner-take-all contests are often designed to help a favorite son, as in New York this year, but more often the policy has little to do with nominating the best candidate and everything to do with advancing the interests of state party officials. By awarding all of their delegates to one candidate, party hacks seek to exaggerate the importance of their state in the nomination process. They also hope that, if the winner of their state contest goes on to be president, he will be beholden to that state’s officials. Such self-serving maneuvering reinforces the public’s cynicism about politics and distorts the will of the voters. To their credit, the Democratic party outlawed WTA primaries years ago.
If McCain can win in New York and New Jersey, where he currently leads in the polls, he could lead in the delegate count after Super Tuesday. His nomination could then become a real and disturbing possibility, but there is still time for McCain to be stopped.
The Republican process is rapidly becoming a two man race. McCain leads in national polls, but these surveys measure little more than name recognition and swing wildly from week to week. In every other measure of success (including numbers of delegates committed, number of votes received and number of primaries won) heading into Florida, the front runner is Mitt Romney. While Romney has not been the first choice of the majority of conservatives so far, very few Republicans consider him unacceptable as the nominee. The party could unite behind Romney, but they could never unite behind McCain. Plus recent events have boosted Romney’s prospects. Romney has long focused on economic concerns and he is the only candidate in the race with a business background. As the economy slides into a recession and/or deeper debt, Romney’s experience becomes more relevant. McCain, by contrast, has spent his whole career in public service. McCain has a genuine and profound contempt for American workers; to the extent that he has focused on economic matters at all, it has been to protect the profits of America’s largest corporations. McCain is the most unfriendly politician that the American middle class has ever seen.
Republicans and conservatives now have no choice but to throw their support to Romney. If McCain is nominated we will see conservatives disenfranchised and the Republican party torn apart, perhaps forever. That may be exactly what the New York Times has been hoping for all along.

Four pro-family leaders endorse Mitt Romney in Florida

Four pro-family leaders endorse Mitt Romney for Florida Presidential Preference primary

Recent changes by candidates for the Republican nomination for president have made it much clearer that Mitt Romney is the preferred candidate of choice in the Florida Presidential Preference primary.

The recent withdrawal of Fred Thompson from the nomination process and the news reports that Mike Huckabee will only have a minimal campaign in Florida leaves the winner take all race for Florida's delegates between Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. The news reports on these recent changes are provided below. Additionally, the Rasmussen Report provided below shows Mitt Romney has the best chances of winning while Huckabee and Thompson trail far behind.

Rasmussen Survey of 754 Likely GOP Voters January 20, 2008

Election 2008: Florida GOP Primary

Mitt Romney 25%

John McCain 20%

Rudy Giuliani 19%

Mike Huckabee 13%

Fred Thompson 12%

Ron Paul 5%

Not Sure 6%

Dennis Baxley, David Caton, Carole Griffin and Anthony Verdugo, representing over fifty years of combined pro-family leadership in Florida, support Mitt Romney in the Florida Presidential Preference Primary.

The election results from Florida's Primary on January 29th will play a significant role in the Republican nomination for president. Florida's election results are expected to heavily influence the choice of voters during the February 5th Super Tuesday primary that will be held in many other state.

Mitt Romney is clearly the most conservative candidate among the top three competitive candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney) appearing on the Florida Presidential Preference ballot in Florida.

Dennis Baxley is the incoming Executive Director for Christian Coalition of Florida and former Florida State Representative for District 24.

David Caton is the Executive Director of Florida Family Association.

Carole Griffin is a pro-family lobbyist in Tallahassee and heads the Eagle Forum in Florida.

Anthony Verdugo is the president of Christian Family Coalition.

The last Alabama Straw Poll - Saturday January 26.

The Alabama Republican Assembly will be hosting
this event. Many of us remember that this organization hosted a straw
poll at the University of Alabama back in August of 2007.

Let's get as many Romney supporters out there and show the media Mitt is a serious contender in Alabama!

The 2008 ALRA Presidential Endorsing Convention

Alabama Republican Straw Poll - Saturday January 26.
Vote for your favorite presidential candidate and give him a media
boast. This event sponsored by the Alabama Republican Assembly.
What: ALRA Straw Poll and Endorsing Convention
When: Saturday, January 26, 10:00 AM
Event fee: $20.00 per person
Where: Birmingham Marriott, 3590 Grandview Parkway, Birmingham, Alabama 35243

The endorsing convention will begin promptly at 10 am and should conclude by 12:00
noon.

Straw poll tickets will be sold for $20 a piece at the door.
The straw poll will open at 10am and close at 11:30am.
The results of the straw poll will be announced at the conclusion of the convention.

As we near the February 5th “Super Tuesday” primary in Alabama, top conservative
Republican grassroots activists in the state (i.e. you) need to make their Presidential preference known to rank and file Republican voters.
This endorsing convention provides you with an opportunity to do just that.

A press release announcing the results of the endorsing convention and straw poll
will be released following the meeting.

As a bonus, invited Senator Jeff Sessions was invited to address the convention on the
very dangerous “Law of the Sea” treaty. Senator Sessions is fast emerging as on of the most important conservative voices in the US Senate. After taking a very principled stand against the Democrats and the Whitehouse on illegal immigration, Sessions is now taking on a treaty that threatens to turn over most of the world’s surface to the United Nations and impose a direct tax on the United States.

Please make it a priority to attend this important endorsing a convention.
The year 2008 will be a momentous one in America’s political history.
Let’s do our part in letting our voices be heard!

"by the content of their character"

Will Sellers wrote a great piece speaking about judging Romney by what he has done, or as Sellers put it the "outward manifestation of how they have lived and what they have accomplished" For any one deciding on whether or not to support Romney, please read this article.

Here are a few highlights

First, Romney has a business background. His was more than just making a living, but Romney was an expert in turning around faltering businesses. And while his success may have been measured in dollars earned, he is the only candidate who has actually saved American jobs by reorganizing and restructuring distressed companies. I think we could use a president who has experience in creating and maintaining employment opportunities.

In his time as governor, Romney worked with a contentious legislature controlled by Democrats to pass legislation that turned the deficit into a surplus, provided tax relief and enacted economic incentives to bring jobs back. These achievements were not the result of scripted rhetoric or media spin. They were rather the accomplishments of the successful political leadership of Mitt Romney

Finally, the content of Romney's character is reflected in the values he shares and promotes. One need only catch a candid interview with his wife, Ann, or one of his sons to know that he not only talks about family values, but he actually lives them. Romney's work as a loving husband and father speaks volumes about his person. The reality of his family life is yet another reason to exalt results over rhetoric.

I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Sellers assessment with Governor Romney's accomplishments and character.

Links here
or
here

Fred Thompson bows out...

Well, one candidate I didn't want to see go so soon has withdrawn from the race, Fred Thompson. I liked having both Thompson and Romney in the race, two strong conservatives who have a great love for conservative values. I think he had one of the best comebacks in the NH debates regarding McCain stating that paying a fine not being amnesty, "Do they get to stay in the country?" "Then its amnesty."


Mitt Romney had this to say regarding Fred Thompson's departure:

“Throughout this campaign, Fred Thompson brought a laudable focus to the challenges confronting our country and the solutions necessary to meet them. He stood for strong conservative ideas and believed strongly in the need to keep our conservative coalition together. Ann and I would like to extend our best wishes to Fred, Jeri and their family and congratulate them on their efforts during this campaign.”

Mitt Romney wins Michigan!!!!

Total Cumulative Vote Tally:
Romney - 450,740 -- 37%
McCain - 367,126 -- 30%
Huckabee - 210,402 -- 17%
Paul - 85,807 -- 7%
Thompson - 51,536 -- 4%
Giuliani - 49,772 -- 4%
Winner: Mitt Romney (he was winning this BEFORE MI too)

Delegate Count (via CNN):
Winner: Mitt Romney (he has more delegates than Huckabee, McCain, and Rudy COMBINED)

Medals Count:
Romney - 2 Gold, 2 Silver
Huckabee - 1 Gold, 2 Bronze
McCain - 1 Gold, 1 Silver
Thompson - 1 Silver, 1 Bronze
Hunter - 1 Bronze
Giuliani -
Paul -
Winner: Mitt Romney

Which candidate has both RAISED the most money AND has the biggest purse to continue on to future states? Mitt Romney

Which candidate has won the largest plurality of voters in any contest thusfar? Mitt Romney (39% of the vote is the highest percentage of any candidate on either side in any contested state thusfar)

Which candidate won the most demographically diverse and most populous state thusfar? Mitt Romney (significant Urban, Suburban, and rural populations in MI)

Flip-flop or Honest Change of Heart?

I read few posts dealing with the dealing with the Romney flip-flop accusation. I decided it be best to simple post and provide the links since the authors did a fine job of addressing the situation. First I’ll start off with the amazing Susan Baldwin of Conservative Wordsmith, then add a dash of Ann Coulter and final top things of with a little Glenn Beck.

First Susan Baldwin:

Is Mitt Romney A Flip-Flopper Or A Lifesaver?

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:48 PM

Conservative Wordsmith Susan Baldwin writes: Is Mitt Romney really a pro-choice, pro-life flip-flopper? My answer is "No." Governor Mitt Romney is definitely not a flip-flopper. My position on flip-flopping is this: A true flip-flopper flips opinions back and forth constantly, just like rubber beach sandals, or flip-flops, constantly flip up and down while walking, because one's feet are only supported by a thong that fits between two toes.

Mitt Romney is not a true flip-flopper, as a real flip-flopper will change views on a particular issue many, many times, just like the example of the beach flip-flops I mentioned above. See the dictionary definition for "flip-flopper" below, and note the significance of the word "continually," which is a synonym for the word "constantly."

Mitt Romney did not continually change his viewpoint on abortion. Mitt Romney should be commended for his honest turnaround. The truth is that Mitt is now very much against the evil sin of abortion, and I believe that he will be a strong advocate for the unborn when he becomes the first Mormon President of the United States of America.

Related Links
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flip-flopper

flip-flopper: a person who continually changes a point of view or decision, esp. a politician

Now Ann Coulter –

The Elephant in the Room

Posted: 01/16/2008

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24505

Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts…Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion.

Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life [a pro-life group by the way]. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a "flip-flopper."

After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

Pro-abortion groups like the Republican Majority for Choice -- the evil doppelganger to my own group, Democratic Majority for Life -- are now running videos attacking Romney for "flip-flopping" on abortion.

Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. Romney governed as a pro-lifer and has been viciously attacked by pro-abortion groups.

Don’t you just love how it’s the liberals who are attacking him as a flip-flopper.

Finally Glenn Beck –

Mitt Romney Interview

January 16, 2008 - 11:13 ET

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/4356/

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait. That's not evolution. I mean, if there's a clear case to be made some case for flip-flop, it's John McCain. He was just trying to hand free amnesty out to everybody and was like, wow, you know, that was a bad idea; we shouldn't do that. That, at least with your abortion thing, you had an explanation. I don't understand how McCain's not being labeled a flip-flopper.

GLENN: The first time we spoke, I don't know if you remember this, I said to you -- I was very, very skeptical and I said before you came on the air, I'll going to ask this guy for his pivot point and if he can't tell me the moment that it crystallized in his head on abortion, if he can't tell me the wallpaper color of when he realized, "Wait a minute, I'm on the wrong side of this issue," he's lying to you. And you told the story about when you changed and you didn't hesitate at all and I knew it was a valid pivot point. I'm a pivot point guy because I'm a alcoholic. I knew -- I can tell you the moment I said I've got to change my life. That's not the case with John McCain. That's a flip-flop. When it comes to taxes, you don't support them back then and now, "well, I'll make them permanent but I'm not really sure if I would do more tax cuts now." That's a flip-flop. He doesn't even understand what tax cuts do.

My Two Cents:

It takes great character to look at your life and realize something has to change. It isn’t easy and in politics it can be deadly since opponents will use it against you. For me, a father of six children, I will welcome any person with open arms who changes there stance to pro-life whenever that change may come. Is the real question/responce, "I’m a better conservative because I was a pro-lifer longer than you?" Or should the better response be, “Welcome to the light, we’re glad you are with us.”

Karl

NEVADA LOOMING: Let's insist the media give the GOP Nevada caucus the coverage and respect it deserves

Most Romney supporters were pretty peeved about how the media has downplayed his WY victory. (a recent Newsmax story addresses this) However, I can see how it was easy for the media to ignore WY results since it's the least populous state and due to the odd caucus system they used (mostly party insiders and/or major activists.) However, their 12 delegates were as many as NH awarded, and Mitt actually got more delegates out of WY (8) than McCain got out of NH (7).

But that's in the past already . . . but NV looms in the future and we need to insist that it should count. Sadly, we're already seeing how downplayed NV is in the national media coverage.

Even though the the media is covering NV pretty heavily for the it for the Democratic side, they're relatively ignoring it for the GOP. My paranoid side says: "Figures, since Romney stands a good chance of winning it . . . of course the MSM will downplay it." I'm actually convinced that Romney will win it (and if he wins MI, Romney will win NV BIG). Unfortunate timing has the NV caucus on the same day as the SC primary (which is monopolizing the media's coverage.)

But is SC inherently more important than NV for this nomination?

OK, so we know that in recent history, no GOP candidate has won the nomination without winning SC. But this year is very different with at least three candidates still with very credible claims to taking it all, and two others who are still considered "top-teir" candidates. Usually, someone has established themselves after IA and NH and races into SC with the mighty momentum. Or, in the past, the race has been winnowed down to two people already and SC has been the final elimination round for one of them. Not so this year. Some are arguing that FL may play the role this year that SC has played in the past.

But lets look at the two states objectively.

Both are on Jan 19th

NV: 34 delegates up for grabs
SC: 24 delegates up for grabs

NV: Important swing state/purple state (i.e. we need someone who can show/run strong in such a state for the general election)
SC: Solid Red state . . . whoever the nominee is will win SC and most of the south no matter what.

NV: First western state on the docket (and much of that region are swing states)
SC: First southern state primary . . . and the south is pretty much locked up for the GOP.

Objectively, NV looks MORE important than SC to me!

Romney supporters need to start trumpeting the importance of NV relative to SC. Let's get this message on blogs, in comment sections on important blogs/articles/etc . . . I encourgage people to forward this message to your friends/contacts. It would be great if we could get an email campaign together focused at news organizations/journalists/prominent bloggers and asking them why it's being ignored so much . . . demanding that it get fair coverage (at least as much as their giving to the Dems in NV. I don't think any of us want another of Romney's wins to be written off like WY was. LET'S MAKE NEVADA COUNT!

Romney - Want to avoid a recession? Cut taxes.

Mitt Romney was on CNN's "Late Edition" being interviewed by "Mr.-Coolest-Name-in-Reporting" Wolf Blitzer. The interview took place 13 Jan 07.

In the first video Wolf leads off asking Gov Romney what he would do to avoid a a recession. I like Mitt's first response, "Lower Taxes." He proposes those folks making under $200,000 wouldn't pay taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains thus giving people a greater opportunity to save there earnings.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ70gsgi8WY

In the second video Mitt Romney responds to McCain's statement that certain jobs are lost to Michigan, specifically the auto industry, forever.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8OWL1adaHM


Mitt Romney has 25 years business experience turning bad situations around. With so many worrying about the economy here is a guy that gets it. He understands is and is optimistic about it's future. This is one of the big reasons why I want Romney for president, his optimism, his faith in America and his belief in people and what they can accomplish.

Romney the Religous Leader

I wanted to point out a pretty good article discussing Romney's leadership while he was a bishop (a pastor) in Massachusetts. It points out some of the typical challenges church leaders face

As a religious leader, Romney met weekly with students, teachers, immigrant converts and Utah transplants. He had to learn how to give sermons, counsel squabbling couples, organize worship services, manage budgets and address the unique and diverse spiritual needs of more than 1,000 church members in the region.
Questions piled up: How should the church help the new Vietnamese or Cambodian members learn English, get jobs and manage church rituals? Should it build a new chapel to relieve overcrowding in the Cambridge meetinghouse, and what should be done about feminists chafing at LDS policies? Desperately poor Haitians flocked to Romney because he spoke French, having learned it on his two-year mission to Paris.

The article speaks about his interactions with other faiths.

[He] clearly saw the benefit of working with other faiths in the area.
After a suspicious fire in 1984 destroyed the beginnings of the Belmont chapel, eight churches offered to share their space. Instead of settling on one, Romney chose three - the Catholic Church, Plymouth Congregational Church and Armenian Protestant Church. After each weekly meeting, Romney insisted the Mormons stay behind to vacuum the floors, wash the blackboards and pick up the chairs.
It taught the members, even affluent ones, to value other people's sacred spaces and to do some seemingly menial labor, recalls Philip Barlow, chairman of Mormon Studies at Utah State University who was a counselor, or assistant, to Romney when he was a bishop.

The article covers many items, some rosy and some not but you can see where Romney learned from mistakes and improved. The final portion ends with:

"For the record, let me say that the Romneys their neighbors and associates know are neither phony nor scary," Barlow writes in a forthcoming issue of Religion in the News, published by the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. "Like it or not, Romney is naturally smooth, as much in private as in public."
The candidate has always "smiled faintly when listening and talking, even about serious or controversial matters," Barlow writes. "Romney smiled in conducting religious services or planning meetings. He smiled while hosting friends at his Cape Cod vacation home. He smiled when comforting a wounded congregant."
This was not a false persona, Barlow writes, but a "mixture of good will, confidence, optimism, enjoyment of intellectual challenge, and idiosyncrasy."

The full link can be found below
http://origin.sltrib.com/faith/ci_7943560

Fees vs Taxes

Romney's opponents have cited Romney on raising taxes or fees by $650 to 500 million. I say taxes or fees because some say fees correctly and others say taxes incorrectly yet purposefully to mislead.

A quick clarification: There is a HUGE difference between fees and taxes.
First, service fees are not taxes. Fees are not required to be payed, unless you want the service attached to them. Fees are usually assessed against items/services that taxes do not support.
Also, service fees REDUCE taxes by having the user pay so the taxpayer doesn't have to.

For example, if you need to register your car and it cost you $50.00 but it costs the government $100.00 (fees, labor, material, personnel) then they are losing money and guess who pays for the loss? You the tax payer will cover the difference in revenue through your taxes, government will not lose out when it comes to money.

Put another way:

Fees: Pay for what you get. Generally integrate well into market systems.

Taxes: Pay for what others get. Generally hurt market systems.

Now to address the ~$650 to 500 million. (By the way isn't it sad how governments can throw around such large numbers, even if we are off by a few hundred thousand? )

Here's the approximate numbers:

$240 million -- Romney's fee hikes on targeted services like highway billboards, multiple copies of driver's licenses, bar exams, etc
$260 million -- Fee hikes that were passed prior to Romney's first year in office, yet did not take effect until Romney was in office
$150 million -- Romney closed corporate tax loopholes

Add all three up, and there's your $650 million, which usually gets rounded to $700 million. Of course, Romney's contribution is only $400 million. Closing the corporate tax loopholes are simply enforcing existing tax code as it was intended...to call this a tax hike is like calling it a sentencing when you send an escaped convict back to prison. See, numerous banks that did some real estate as part of their business were claiming to be "real estate lenders" as their primary business and were thereby qualifying for a major tax shelter. Romney knew this was a false claim and called them to task on it. Simple enforcement.

The $240 million of fee hikes that Romney approved were more than offset by various TAX CUTS he implemented...in other words, better than a "revenue neutral" shift of taxes to service fees, which any conservative should like. The service fees were generally in line with national and local inflationary trends, as well as making the prices more reflective of the actual costs. Fees generally make accounting in government more transparent, as you can see where the money is going...and there's really no good reason to subsidize a service cost below its market value anyway.

Here's the link for Romney's tax cuts, the biggest of which was his reversal of the $250 million retroactive capital gains tax in 2005.

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Record_Taxes_12.22


Romney did more for tax relief for the the citizens of Massachusetts than any other governor in a long time.

For those who say Romney is too perfect...

Here is a fun little video of him and his family on one of Mitt's days off. I like the part with the kids watching the thunderstorm and when his son tries to light the whole box of firecrackers while standing over it.

Enjoy.

Alabama Primary 5 Feb 2007

Just a reminder for all Alabamians that the Alabama primary is 5 Feb 2007.

FAQ: The Alabama Primary System and Its Effects on Election 2008

Posted on January 9th, 2008 by Steve

Do the Alabama Republicans and Alabama Democrats hold their primaries on the same day?
Yes, the Alabama Republican Party and the Alabama Democratic Party are both hosting their primaries Tuesday, February 5

Who can vote in the primaries?
Anyone who is registered to vote 10 days before the primary is allowed to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. Whether declared Republican, Democrat, or Independent you can vote in the open Republican primary or the open Democratic primary.

I turned in a voter registration application. Am I registered to Vote?

Just because you turned in a voter registration application does not necessarily mean you are registered to vote. Once your application has been processed by your local board of registrars, you should receive an acknowledgement from the registrars indicating the status of your application. This acknowledgement will usually be a voter identification card confirming that you are registered to vote. However, if your application was incomplete, you may receive a letter requesting additional information to complete your application. If you are unsure about the status of your application, you can always call your local board of registrars and check.

Is Mitt’s run for the White House done if he doesn’t win 1st in Michigan?
No, not by a long shot. He is leading all Republicans in the delegate count with ‘two silvers and a gold’, and a second place in Michigan would obviously be more disappointing than a first, but will still carry the banner of the consensus conservative candidate.

What is a consensus conservative candidate?
Mitt is the standard bearer of the Reagan Coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Senator McCain has strongly favored a comprehensive immigration approach, which included work visas for illegals, higher CAFE standards for automobiles, which hurts the American automobile industry, and the (in)famous McCain-Feingold legislation that limits campaign contributions.

Governor Huckabee, on the other hand, has supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, raised numerous state taxes, and pardoned more inmates than the three previous Arkansas Governors combined.

Why should I vote for Mitt Romney for President?
Alabama has a growing economy, increased developed and jobs are coming into the state. Alabamians need Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cuts to complement Alabama’s growth. Romney will bring proven executive, private sector experience to Washington D.C., so the Federal Government will work more like Fed Ex, and not like the Government that incompetently reacted to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Mitt Romney knows how to work with Democrats as he was Governor of Massachusetts with an entirely Democratic legislature, and implemented a market-based health insurance program for all state residents. Mitt is intelligent and articulate as well. He has an MBA and law degree from Harvard, and is one of the strongest public speakers in the entire 2008 field of presidential candidates.

With Romney as President, Alabamians can trust that their taxes will stay low, their country will have a strong, proactive national defense, and a leader who will support pro-family legislation as he has lived family values.

Q. Does my vote really make a difference?

A. "Just" one vote can and often does make a difference in the outcome of an election. Here are some recent examples of real elections decided by one vote.

• In 1997, Vermont State representative Sydney Nixon was seated as an apparent one vote winner, 570 to 569. Mr Nixon resigned when the State House determined, after a recount, that he had actually lost to his opponent Robert Emond 572 to 571.

• In 1989, a Lansing, Michigan School District millage proposition failed when the final recount produced a tie vote 5,147 for, and 5,147 against. On the original vote count, votes against the proposition were ten more than those in favor. The result meant that the school district had to reduce its budget by $2.5 million.

• In 1994, Republican Randall Luthi and Independent Larry Call tied for a seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives from the Jackson Hole area with 1,941 votes each. A recount produced the same result. Mr. Luthi was finally declared the winner when, in a drawing before the State Canvassing Board, a pingpong ball bearing his name was pulled from the cowboy hat of Democratic Governor Mike Sullivan.

• In 1997, South Dakota Democrat John McIntyre led Republican Hal Wick 4,195 to 4,191 for the second seat in Legislative District 12 on election night. A subsequent recount showed Wick the winner at 4,192 to 4,191. The State Supreme Court however, ruled that one ballot counted for Wick was invalid due to an overvote. This left the race a tie. After hearing arguments from both sides, the State Legislature voted to seat wick 46 to 20.

Do you have any more information on Alabama’s primary?

http://www.sos.state.al.us/Elections/2008/ElectionInfo2008.aspx

http://www.uselections.com/al/al.htm

http://www.voteal.org/qa.htm

After NH Romney still on top!

Mitt Romney is still ahead of the pack. To recap, Romney came in second in Iowa, first in Wyoming, and close second in New Hampshire. The big story here is Romney still leads in over all delegates, what actually get you the nomination. Remember eight years ago when McCain won in New Hampshire, Michigan, and elsewhere. George W. Bush still won the majority of Republican votes. Bush played that card effectively as he marched towards the eventual GOP nomination.

Also, many say he's lost cause he out spent his opponents and it hasn't reaped a win. Romney has spent more money because he is not a house hold name like McCain or Guliani. He's had to get his message out there buy spending money on adds and trips to the states. I wrote about this previously here.

Below is the breakdown:

By the popular vote.

Romney - 30% - 103,247
McCain - 29% - 101,637
Huckabee - 19% - 66,638
Paul - 9% - 29,469
Giuliani - 7% - 23,955
Thompson - 5% - 18,684

The only other criteria–and the most important one for that matter–is overall delegate count.

Romney - 30 (42%)
Huckabee - 21 (30%)
McCain - 10 (14%)
Thompson - 6 (8%)
Paul - 2 (3%)
Giuliani - 1 (1%)
Hunter - 1 (1%)

.

Folks this is a long haul race not something decided on few states. Rush Limbaugh outlined it well

I want to remind all my Republican friends that there are many states after Iowa and New Hampshire where the Republican populations are far more indicative of the conservative base, and to get caught up in what happened in Iowa, to get caught up in what's going to happen in New Hampshire as though they're the only two states that matter and that they're going to determine the fallout on both parties is a little bit over the top.

Iowa is a caucus; it's a weird setup. New Hampshire allows independents to vote in the Republican primary, which is why McCain is doing as well as he is doing, and it's why the media want this to be a bellwether against Romney. I mean, Pat Buchanan came in second. He came in a very strong second in New Hampshire in 1992. Now, I'm not saying that these contests are not to be taken seriously here, and that they're not to be fought and to be won, but we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. New Hampshire is no longer the conservative barometer it used to be. The state has changed, it is now quite liberal. A lot of people who used to live in Massachusetts have moved into New Hampshire to escape high taxation and other problems. New England generally the northern states, states like Iowa, is not where the conservative base resides in large numbers.

Funny the way the media and pundits report it, Romney is a dead duck...didn't they say the same about George Bush?

"It's the Economy Stupid": John McCain Admits He Isn't Ready to Oversee Economy

This is repost of an excellent blog by Jeff Fuller from Iowans for Romeny

So "The Economy" constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.

Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without health care insurance).

In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.

So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn't think so. His new economic plan isn't impressing many. And let's not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain's economic record (Their main points are that "John McCain is No Supply-Sider" and that he has a "Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative")

Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the economy?

Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:

SALEM, N.H. -- John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn't know much about economics . . .

Later in the piece:

McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign's alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he's weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.

Yet further:

Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."

If Senator McCain hasn't a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you're not ever going to "get it" . . . even if Greenspan's book is really good.

If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama?
NO!
Romney's is a superior option to have at the TOP of the ticket.

FOX News Debate - Romney Hits a Home Run

Mitt held his own on the 5 Jan Debate and many pundits declared him the but tonights debate was an all out victory for Romney.

I had to listen to the debate via FOX New's watch live. I was able to listen to a good portion and watch the Luntz focus group graphs while the candidates responded. It was amazing how often Romeny ranked high with the group when he explained his positions. Below is the final summary and with Romney clearly the winner with the people.



Below is the explanation of the focus group and how they reacted when Romney spoke on certain issues. Important note: Romney continued to score high through out the debate.



The last part of the video members of the group agree Romney can beat Obama in 2008.


In addition many of he folks at Townhall.com gave there assessment of the debate

Mary Katherine Ham stated ranked Mitt at #1 and stated:

He was a stronger, more real version of Mitt tonight. I truly enjoyed it, and I haven't thought he's won a debate since the very first Republican debate. I think he probably did himself a lot of good in New Hampshire tonight, and the Luntz focus group shows it. This is the first time I've thought, maybe ever, that there's a glimmer of hope for Romney in a general.

Hugh Hewitt brought out the Luntz focus groups and their amazing results

The Luntz focus group is the best ten minutes of television Romney has had since the campaign began.

Fred Barnes: "A terrific debate for Mitt Romney."

Luntz's people meters measuring moment by moment reactions from debate watchers show that Romney consistently got the best results from both conservatives and moderates. "Incredibly high results," Luntz says on both illegal immigration and the need to change Washington.

"With just two days to go Romney hit a home run tonight," Luntz concluded.

One secondary benefit of tonight's debate for Romney is that Republicans thinking forward to the fall debates with Barack Obama know who is the best prepared to handle those contests.

In addition here are moments from the 5 Jan Debate at St. Anselm College. Note the same

Now Romney soaring here describing why he is running and his values:

http://www.wmur.com/video/14986506/index.html

and here were he discusses radical jihad and the need to move to a second phase to deal with Iraq:

http://www.wmur.com/video/14986296/index.html

Romney Signed A No Tax Pledge

This is from Monday, Oct 15, 2007 but explains well, from Governor Romney's own lips his feelings on rains taxes. It bears reposting with so many caucuses occurring folks need to know where Mitt Romney stands on taxes.

Governor Mitt Romney
Fox Business Network's "Cavuto"
October 15, 2007

Fox News' Neil Cavuto: "Now, he's the only GOP candidate so far to sign this no-tax pledge. Does he remember what happened to President Bush's father? So I asked him: is he nuts?"

Governor Mitt Romney: "Well, you have to stand for something and indicate what your priorities and your principles are and, in this setting, we're taking in enough money. The government is not taxing too little, it is spending too much. My priority is to rein in spending."

Cavuto: "So you can never see a situation where you might have to abandon that pledge?"

Governor Romney: "If King Kong attacks California, why, we'd obviously have to reconsider, but that's not..."

Cavuto: "What about a multi-year recession?"

Governor Romney: "Raising taxes is not the right answer for a multi-year recession. Major recessions would require reducing taxes, the right way to get our economy?"

Cavuto: "So there's no variable?"

Governor Romney: "The key is to keep our tax burden down so you grow the economy. A growing economy creates the revenues that government needs, and as long as you rein in spending so that spending is growing at a slower rate than the economy – then you have a stronger and stronger future."

Cavuto: "No one can get spending under control, Governor..."

...

Cavuto: "Would you ever envision a scenario where you'd entertain [raising taxes]?"

Governor Romney: "No, no the right answer is not to raise taxes on the American people and whether you're talking about capital gains tax or the ordinary income tax or the death tax or the Social Security tax, you don't want to raise taxes on people. We're taxing enough. The question is how do we spend our money more wisely and which programs are actually effective.

"When I came into the Olympics, for instance, I found out we had to cut our budget by $200 million and people said that's impossible. But you know, we did it. It took us a long time, we worked it through, we looked at all the things we were doing, we said, 'These are nice things to do, nice to have, but they're not need-to-have.' And in a country like ours, given the challenges we face globally, we're going to have to cut back to the need-to-have programs; the true safety-net programs, our military programs, but other sort of Congressional ideas that have been hanging around for years that aren't getting a lot done, we're going to pare some of those back or eliminate them all together.

To watch Governor Romney, please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FN_dfXhSaQ

Romney Takes Wyoming!

Mitt Romney takes Wyoming. Congratulations! The media gave it about 30 seconds of air play since everybody is paying attention to New Hampshire.

Total delegates thus far

Romney 26
Huckabee 20
Thompson 6
McCain 3
Paul 2
Rudy 1

Updates can be found below:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/05/wyoming.republicans/index.html

Interesting thought if Romney takes 2nd in New Hampshire he'll have an even wider lead in the total delegate count. I'm pretty sure everybody will talk about how he's in trouble and looks like he is dead, but how could the total delegate leader who has finished 2nd, 1st, 2nd in the first three states be in trouble?

Romney on the Supreme Court

The First Monday in October marks the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court term. Cases in the upcoming term could dramatically impact the everyday lives of all Americans. The Court will face questions involving the death penalty, voter identification as a means of ensuring fair elections, efforts to stop child pornography, whether terrorists held as enemy combatants deserve special rights, and perhaps even our right to keep and bear arms. That is why it is important that we nominate justices in the strict constructionist mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

Today reminds us that a judge’s most solemn obligation is to the 'rule of law,' a phraseology of which I am particularly fond since it comes from the original Massachusetts constitution of 1780. It reminds us that those appointed to the federal bench must leave behind their partisan passions and retain only one: the passion for 'equal justice under law.' Respect and fidelity to the rule of law and equal justice under law must guide the judicial mind and, in fact, they are required by the oath all federal judges must take.

Those holding themselves out for the Presidency have an equally solemn obligation: to find women and men for judicial service who respect the rule of law and who will be faithful to the law as enacted. As President, I intend to nominate judges who respect the separation of powers, are committed to judicial restraint, and have a genuine appreciation of the text, structure, and history of our Constitution. The judges I nominate will recognize, as I do, that as Justice Scalia once said, the Court ought not take the field as some kind of 'junior-varsity Congress.' That would wrongl

From Nobody to Second in Iowa

Congrats to Gov Romney for taking second in the Iowa caucus. A number of new stories are highlighting that Romney spent all this money and only got second but did he fail?

Romney came into Iowa as a no name governor from a blue north eastern state and was up against three well known names, Mayor Rudi Gulliani, Senator McCain and Fred Thompson. He did beat all of them.

More good news is that Iowa has a mixed record at best for identifying the ultimate nominee. Ronald Reagan came in second in 1980, George H.W. Bush came in third in 1988, and Bill Clinton came in second in 1992 before going on to ultimately winning their Party's nomination. Additionally, the way the math works out, Romney still got nearly as many delegates as Huckabee (a difference of just 5) and 4x the number of delegates as the next competitor.

Huckabee - 34% (17 delegates)
Romney - 25% (12 delegates)
Thompson - 13% (3 delegates)
McCain - 13% (3 delegates)
Paul - 10% (2 delegates)
Giuliani - 4% (no delegates)

What we saw in Iowa was the triumph of identity politics and populism over traditional Reagan Conservatism. A few facts for consideration:

• Evangelicals massively turned out for this caucus at 60% of all voters vs. only 39% in 2000
• Among these Evangelicals, Huckabee won 46% vs. 19% for Romney
• Romney won decisively among the rest (i.e. non-Evangelicals) at 33% vs. 13% for Huckabee
• The leading constituency for Huckabee was rural Evangelical women who live in towns smaller than 10,000 in population

Presidential runs are marathons and Romney is use to long races...don't count him out.

A Plea from Arkansas: Christian Conservatives Need to Take a Closer Look at Mike Huckabee's Record as Governor

Hugh Hewitt just posted a letter against Mike Huckabee written by a very staunch and active Republican in Arkansas, who is also a born-again Christian, David Thompson

The story is here

I'm not going to repost the whole letter, please visit Hugh Hewitt's site and read it, it is worth your time.

Here are the main points the gentlemen points out

1) Governor Huckabee did lasting damage to the Republican Party and conservative movement in Arkansas.

2) Governor Huckabee's non-stop clemencies continually hindered the work of criminal prosecutors and miffed Republicans.

3) Governor Huckabee's pattern was to ignore immigration laws, often in the name of Christianity.

4) Governor Huckabee was no friend to fiscal conservatives in Arkansas.

5) Huckabee left a long trail of ethics questions while Governor of Arkansas.

6) Huckabee's education record shows him to be an advocate of the "status quo".

7) Huckabee has very little support for his Presidential bid here in Arkansas.


Given the many vulnerabilities in his record, what is the likelihood that Huckabee would win in a general election? Democrat National Committee officials have already been quoted as saying that they see Huckabee as "easy kill" and refer to him as "the glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it." The DNC has issued over 200 attack press releases on Republican candidates - only 4 on Huckabee, the last one coming 10 months ago.

This is good stuff. Again please read the full story located here.

Addy - http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/33391ddb-ed1f-4bc3-9d19-cdca6181d5d4

Observations and then some

As I read Townhall yesterday I cam across an interesting column by Douglas Mackinnon titled "McHuck-a-Smear" The article is here.

After discussing the pulled negative ad that know one was going to see (but here it is) he addresses a foreign policy gaffes by Gov Huckabee. Following Benazir Bhutto's assassination Gov Hukabee offered his apologies...NO WAIT!!! He offered "our apologies"...What? Why is he apologizing for what happened in Pakistan? That is an internal affair, we didn't do it. Mackinnon follows on with:

Aside from that strange response, why does he amateurishly talk of sending U.S. forces into Pakistan to hunt down one man? A plan that would further risk destabilizing an already fragile Pakistani government...

Good point. I seem to remember Gov Romney receiving a lot of flak when asked about what would he do if we had another 9-11 style attack. He answered something to the effect of meeting with advisers and seeing the legality of response. NOTE: (I can not find the exact statement, if you know it tell me and I'll revise the post).

My point - Romney would pull in some experts and talk about the best method to proceed, just as every decent president before us has done...think it out and then act.

-------------

Love is in the Air or you'd think that with the way Senator McCain and Gov Huckabee have come together recently. I like how Mackinnon describes it:

Clearly, the mutual admiration society of Huckabee and McCain has nothing to do with the feelings of each toward the other, but rather, their growing panic with regard to the Romney campaign. While Romney has run what the media has called “conventional contrast ads” against the positions and records of both candidates, McCain and Huckabee have chosen the low road in response. Each man decided to launch personal attacks against Romney and his very character.

Romney's ads attack the facts, the "what you did as governor or senator" It points out the substance. It reminds me of Reagan vs Carter, he went after his record not Carter personally. The Huckabee and McCain campaigns can't stand by the record so go after the person?

By the way McCain's add used personal attacks against Romney generated by the ultra-liberal Concord Monitor. When asked about it McCain said He was not saying it but the paper. (but I guess it was worth repeating?) This sounds like Huckabee's goof up...maybe they are sharing tactics.

Well at least Gov Huckabee is consistent, a former Arkansas Governor who ran for president also used personal attacks against other candidates.

----------

Oh, one last point from Mr Mackinnon's article

[W]hy has the equally liberal Boston Globe endorsed McCain? Why has the National Education Association of New Hampshire endorsed Mike Huckabee? Why? Other than liking their amnesty and education plans for illegal aliens, what is it about these two candidates that these liberal organizations and media outlets love?

The media loves McCain and Huckabee. All today it's been about McVain's (whoops) McCain's surge and it has been the pitch line on every station, he's the "Comeback Kid." I'll throw my two cents in. The media knows Romney will beat, yes beat, any candidate on the Democrat side.

McCain and Huckabee go against Hillary or Obama it will be another Dole vs Clinton.

Against Romney, they lose.


P.S. If you'd like to read more regarding the media read El Rushbo's analysis here.

The Speech: YouTube Version

Loved it more the third time. Truly a great speech that he wrote himself. Very presidential delivery. This man is what American needs!!!

National Review Endorses Mitt Romney for President!!!

Merry Christmas Mitt!!

Gotta Quote This one en toto . . .

Romney for President

By the Editors

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything — all the traits, all the positions — we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization — none of the major candidates has — he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year’s amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.

Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider’s critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Demo­crat­ic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.

Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and “tougher measures to stop illegal immigration.” He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.

We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.

He still has some convincing to do with other conservatives. Romney has been plagued by the sense that his is a passionless, paint-by-the-numbers conservatism. If he is to win the nomination, he will have to show more of the kind of emotion and resolve he demonstrated in his College Station “Faith in America” speech.

For some people, Romney’s Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush’s virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

Romney Has HORRIBLE Hair!!

Steven Swint from Dry Fly Politics alerted me to his post about how Romney (with HORRIBLE hair!!) went out early one morning to help a guy clean up his yard in the wake of the San Diego Fires WITHOUT inviting/alerting any press
(original link here which originally came from a journal entry that someone shared via email with friends)
This is a man who doesn't just talk the talk . . . he walks the walk of hard work, compassion, and Christlike service. Romney for President!

Jeff Fuller (Crossposted at-----> Iowans for Romney)

Ann Romney coming to Birmingham on June 19th

I don't know the details, but Ann Romney will be in Birmingham on June 19th for some campaigning and at a private fundraiser.

Anyone with details please comment below.

Repeal McCain-Feingold says Romney...I agree.

Gov. Romney wrote a piece that was posted on Townhall.com outlining the flaws with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. It was a great article and can be found here.
Later, May 26, the Washington Post editorial, Campaign Finance Flip, attacked Gov. Romney for saying the bill has done more to harm free political speech than improve it. Well, today in Townhall.com I find this wonderful article by James Bopp Jr. explaining why Gov. Romney is correct and The Washington Post is wrong, imagine that.

A few highlights:

Romney attacks McCain-Feingold because the "electioneering communication" prohibition imposes a "free speech blackout period," where corporations, including non-profit advocacy groups, and labor unions would commit a federal crime if they mentioned the name of a federal candidate in a broadcast ad within 30 days of a primary and 60 of a general election. He says that "the American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations" and that this blackout period "is contrary to the spirit of a free and open issues debate.

You can speak out politically...but only when we want you to. Go it.

Romney was and is appropriately concerned about the influence of money on politics, which is why he is for more transparency, accountability and disclosure, all of which McCain-Feingold has undermined by driving money to "secret corners." Regarding spending limits and public funding, which he previously supported, they restrict candidates, not citizens groups which he criticized McCain-Feingold for, and they proved to be such a failure in Massachusetts that he supported their repeal as Governor.

Gov. Romney wants more transparency & accountability and he made that happen in his own state.

Senator McCain recently explained, in filings in the U.S. Supreme Court, that any broadcast ads were sham efforts to influence federal elections, if they "took a critical stance regarding a candidate's position on an issue" and "referred to the candidate by name," during the blackout periods, and could be banned. It would come as a surprise to most Americans that incumbent politician have the power under our Constitution to prohibit people from criticizing them, but this is just what McCain-Feingold is intended to do.

Legally banning a statement that takes a critical stance against a candidate's position on an issue!!?? Gee, I thought that's what free political speech was all about, the fact that I can speak out against your political position because I do not agree with it and I don't have to worry about reprisal. I just came back from Iraq where under Saddam, if you spoke out against him you died. Any time a government embarks on suppressing a citizens freedom of political speech...you have to start worrying.

I'm not saying McCain is out to become some dictator but when you advocate a bill that benefits incumbent politicians by making it harder for citizens to elect some one other that you, well it makes me mad and wonder what he is all about.

I have stated this before in previous blogs, Mitt Romney is for freer political speech and greater political involvement of our great citizenry. Freer political climate benefits you whether you are for or against Romeny.

Romney comes out on top of debate with voters

The below clip from Fox News, courtesy of You Tube shows what I and many others have said for a while, Romney just answers the questions the best he can. He doesn't have all the answers, be afraid of someone who says they do, but he knows how to get them. He's not too proud to ask.

Enjoy the clip

Newt Gingrich says Romney can deliver a bold dramatic vision.

I was reading the Fox News Sunday transcript of the interview between Chris Wallace and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich lays down the line on many of Bush's policies and repeat a theme that "Washington" is not working. Now toward the end Wallace asks Gingrich about Fred Thompson pretty much saying he is running for president and if he is the "true conservative" for the Republican party. Gingrich states Mitt Romney would be capable of offering a very bold, dramatic vision for the Republican party.

The quote follows:

WALLACE: We've got a couple of minutes left. Fred Thompson all but announced this week that he is running for president. Are you satisfied with his credentials? Does the Republican field now have a true conservative?

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, there are several candidates who each bring their own unique strengths to this, and in terms of offering a very bold, dramatic vision, Governor Romney would be capable of it. I think Mayor Giuliani would be capable of it. I think Fred Thompson will be capable of it.

Now granted he mentions Giuliani and Thompson but Romney is the first one he comes up with, I think it's significant but that's my two cents. Either way the fact that Gingrich, who is no political idiot, recognizes Mitt Romney as person who can offer and deliver a bold dramatic message shows the increasing impact Mitt Romney is making. I hope there will be more opportunities for Mitt Romney to give his message...Americans need to hear it.

Sources:
article here
http addy if link doesn't work- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277454,00.html

Back in the Good ole USA!

I finally have returned from Iraq and after taking some time to spend with family and various TDYs for the Air Force I can start working on the blog again. It looks like some much has changed during my deployment - we had access to some news but we usually did watch it cause they report a lot about Iraq with skewed eyes. Either way I'm happy to be home and drink out of a garden hose with worrying about caching some really nasty stomach bug.

I'll start posting as soon as I get my head into the political scheme.

For all those who keep the troops in your prayers, please know they are answered in so many ways. yes there are men and women who die but the number that miraculously survive and stay alive is amazingly higher. God bless you all for you faith on our behalf.

Sincerely,

Karl Basham

Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures: McCain Campaign Regurgitates MSM & DNC Lies About Romney Record . . . Romney Never was "a Liberal"

McCain's deeply flawed immigration bill has been a recent "flash point" for criticism. McCain has obviously taken the attacks on this horrible legislation a little too personally and has wrongly punched back on the personal level (similar to his personal attack on Romney's conviction during the 2nd debate that he switches positions "during even numbered years".)

From a Newsweek article:

Referring to Romney's stance, McCain said: "Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before."

Then followed his "varmint" comment which was an obviously planned line fed to him from someone in the campaign.

So, what's so desperate about attacking a cheif rival? The attacks, on the surface, speak of an general unease in the McCain camp about their own failings and Romney's continued successes. But it's not just the attacks, but the substance of the attacks and the actual accusations being leveled. McCain's campaign aides are sensing the fear of a Rising Romney and have resorted to DNC-like charges at Mitt's apparent lack of core convictions.

From Newsweek recently regarding the varmint comment:

To which John Weaver, a top McCain aide replied: “It was a joke and, by the way, Mitt Romney should be mocked! There isn’t a single issue in politics he hasn’t flip-flopped on."

From a Mother Jones article another top McCain aid said:

"Mitt Romney has been consistent in one regard: that nearly every position he holds now is opposite of what it was when he was governor of Massachusetts."

That same article also had the following zinger:

He [Romney] previously held all of the same positions as Giuliani -- he's just trying to lie about them while Giuliani is standing for what he believes in.

This is a segue into the deeper theme they are trying to lay. A smattering of recent quotes is enlightening:

Deseret News:

Foremost is the charge that he's a campaign convert to conservatism after running as a more moderate or liberal candidate in Massachusetts.

Even some conservative commentators like Deroy Murdock (a big-time Rudy supporter), get in on the game from time to time.

Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.

Bill Maher recently said "If Mitt Romney were a movie, it would be "Say Anything." (I'm sure he wouldn't apply that same critical humor to his buddy Bill Clinton, eh?)

The overall image being portrayed of Romney (and don't ever think these lines of attack aren't driven by the media moguls of the MSM) is that he's a man with no convictions, who will say or do anything if it is politically expedient. However, their only other "dig" against Romney is not just his religious affiliation, but that he's unabashedly a devout and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--somehow implying that he's TOO dedicated and true to his core convictions, namely his faith and his family. It would be in their best interest to decide on one line of attack. If they keep pounding both of these drums even the average American voter will realize they are being sold a false bill of goods. We won't be buying it guys!

I've blogged before (here and here) that Romney was never close to being the liberal that some are claiming. He was actually far more of a conservative than even a moderate. Below I'll put in the image again of one of his 1994 campaign flyers and let you judge. Aside from the well documented, AND WELCOMED, shift on abortion he's been rock solid as a conservative then and now (BTW Romney vetoed the "employer mandate" portion of the MA healthcare plan)



I'd like to see McCain, his aides, and the DNC explain their position that Mitt has "flipped on every political issue" when he's been consistant on 23 of the 24 (or 96%) issues in this flyer. They're busy enough spinning their own problems, so I probably shouldn't "pile on" right now!

Ann Romney Impresses in Alabama

Here's some video of Ann speaking to the AL GOP women's group.(including a nice plug for Romney by Gov. Bob Riley)

Newspaper coverage here and here.

"Deep but Narrow"--The MSM's line on Romney's support

***Action oriented post . . . take action by donating to Romney's campaign****

Many pundits and reporters are apparently shocked that Romney rivaled Hillary and Obama in fundraising (while strongly outpacing his GOP rivals). They feel like they have "some splanin' to do" and boy have they been spinning his success as negatively as they can.

Always leading the liberal MSM charge we can count on the NY Times with this piece "Romney Used His Wealth to Enlist Richest Donors"

Mr. Romney's financial support is deep but narrow. He amassed $20 million from fewer than 33,000 donors, according to figures disclosed by his campaign. By comparison, Mr. McCain raised $12.5 million from nearly 50,000 donors while Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, raised $25 million from more than 100,000. Their average contributors each gave about $250; Mr. Romney's gave more than $600.

(Why do they think Romney "amassed" his money while McCain and Obama "raised" theirs? . . . a small point, but unmistakably biased)

Need more evidence? Plenty to follow . . .

Newsweek article:

The Romney 2008 campaign has been very methodical. His fund-raising machine is a marvel; in just one day last January, he raised $6.5 million, almost just to show that he could. But his base is narrow—mostly wealthy Mormons and Wall Streeters.

From the Economist (one of my favorite periodicals BTW):

It helps Mr Romney that his Rolodex is stuffed with wealthy supporters. His money came from just 33,000 contributors. Mr McCain, in contrast, relied on 60,000 people.

What is the natural conclusion of all this? It is that Romney can't sustain this fundraising pace . . . that he lacks a grassroots appeal . . . that his donors will be tapped out early.

From Poltical tip sheet Hotline:

It's likely that the average gift was astronomically high, meaning there is almost no chance this is a "grassroots outpouring" in favor of Romney. (which is confirmed by the very skewed ratio of donors to dollars raised) This is a large dollar candidate, not an Internet candidate.

Another opinion from RedState:

Don't get me wrong, for Mitt Romney to have raised over 20 million is impressive. But if one takes a closer look at where the donations came from, one finds Romney got far more "big" donations than did McCain. What that means is that in the next round or two of fundraising, Romney's donors will be tapped out to the max, whereas McCain's campaign can go back and get repeat donations (in smaller quantities) from the same loyal donors . . . For Mitt Romney, it could be a case where he might have peaked too early.

I view this all as a challenge!

We all know that Mitt has a great "ground game". . . both in organized political staff and grassroots supporters; so let's show that we can prove all the naysayers wrong and help him win the next round of fundraising (this time with over 100,000 donors!).

DONATE TO ROMNEY'S CAMPAIGN. (for those that use my Fundraiser ID 225003, rest assured that 100% of your contribution goes to Romney's campaign directly . . . or use someone else's ID, or use nobody's ID . . . JUST CONTRIBUTE TO ROMNEY'S CAMPAIGN!!!) Get your spouse to donate, get your kids, parents, friends, in-laws, neighbors, co-workers, dogs (OK . . . I think McCain-Feingold prohibits doggie donations) to donate too. Even just $10 would be very helpful (and rest assured that names are not reported on FEC filings for contributions under $200 . . . if it's that important to you).

This second challenge is for everyone that has already donated in the first quarter. Great! Now match or exceed your Q1 contribution to keep the MittMentum going!

Forward a link of this blog entry (copy and paste URL from here) to anyone who you think might want to support Romney's campaign. Let's prove all the MSM pundits and naysaywers wrong! We can do it!

Jeff Fuller

AP: Romney brings presidential campaign to Alabama

This AP article prefaces some of Romney's doings in Bama:

Romney brings presidential campaign to Alabama
PHILLIP RAWLS
Associated Press
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who brought his presidential campaign to Alabama on Friday, is drawing early support from some of the state's top Republicans, and he's getting praised by the governor.

But others question how Romney's past views and Mormon faith will play in the conservative state.

Romney traveled to Montgomery to speak to the Alabama Republican Party after campaigning earlier in the day in South Carolina, which has the South's first Republican presidential primary on Feb. 2, 2008, followed by Alabama and Arkansas on Feb. 5.

It was Romney's third trip to Alabama since last fall, and he has already put together a campaign team in the state.

State Treasurer Kay Ivey is serving as state chair of his exploratory committee. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Saks, is co-chair, and U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Haleyville, has endorsed him.

Ivey calls Romney "a true conservative" and said she was impressed by "his record of making government more responsive to the people."

Alabama's Republican governor, Bob Riley, has not endorsed anyone in the presidential race, but he praised Romney on Friday, singling out his success as a venture capitalist and running the Salt Lake City Olympics before becoming governor the same year as Riley.

"This guy is the quintessential candidate. He's nice looking. He's articulate. He's eminently successful," Riley said at a news conference.

State Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, is not among Romney's supporters. He said he was "shocked" when he began to review positions Romney held before he started eyeing the presidency.

"When he ran for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney took some of the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights positions I have ever seen a Republican take. He made Ted Kennedy seem almost conservative," said Beason, who has strong ties to the GOP's religious right in Alabama.

While in South Carolina, Romney sought to dispel doubts about his opposition to abortion.

"Every act I've taken as governor has been in favor of life," he said.

While campaigning for governor in 2002 and making an unsuccessful Senate race in 1994, Romney positioned himself as a supporter of abortion rights. He said the death of a teenage relative during the 1960s from a botched abortion caused him to believe the procedure should be safe and legal.

Romney said he reversed his position two years ago after studying the issue of stem cell research and deciding that abortion "cheapened the value of human life."

John Giles, former president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama and Christian Action Alabama, said Romney's Mormon faith may cause him problems in an overwhelmingly Protestant state like Alabama.

"Alabama is not going to be keen on that," Giles said.

Ivey predicted Romney's religion will have no more impact that John Kennedy's Catholicism did when he carried the state in 1960.

"He's been married to the same woman for 38 years. I don't know of any others who can say that," Ivey said of other leading Republican candidates.

Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport contributed to his report.

Still looking for more details of his showing in Montgomery. Stay posted.

Romney Camp Defends Against Unfounded Attacks

New Press Release from Romney's Campaign. Again showing lighting response time to unfounded attacks (like the flyers that were being distributed at the D.C. pro-life march.)

Myth vs. Fact: The Facts on Governor Romney's Pro-Life Record
Monday, Jan 22, 2007

MYTH: Today, Materials Passed Out By "Anonymous Somebodies" Claim Governor Romney Supported RU-486 "As Late As 2005." "Liz Mair sends word that some anonymous somebodies are passing out anti-Romney fliers at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. today. Among the bullet points listed are allegations that Governor Romney flip-flopped on RU-486 – as late as 2005 supposedly supportive of the idea of forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense the abortion drug." ("Romney Backed RU-486?," www.redstate.com, 1/22/06)

FACT: Governor Romney Is Pro-Life, Opposes RU-486 And Has A Record Of Taking Action To Protect The Sanctity Of Life. "If you want to know where I stand by the way, you don't just have to listen to my words, you can go to look at my record as governor. ... I have also taken action to protect the sanctity of life. I vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, Plan B emergency contraception, and of course a redefinition of when life was going to begin as well." (Romney For President Exploratory Committee, "Governor Mitt Romney On His 1994 Debate With Senator Ted Kennedy," Press Release, 1/10/07)

- To view video, please see: http://mittromney.permissiontv.com/?showid=36427

Governor Romney Is Supported By Leading Pro-Lifers, Including:

- Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
- Former Representative Vin Weber (R-MN)
- Representative Jim McCrery (R-LA)
- Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
- Representative Tom Feeney (R-FL)
- Representative Dave Camp (R-MI)
- Representative Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA)

FACT: In 2005, Governor Romney Vetoed Morning-After Pill Legislation. "Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill on Monday expanding access to emergency contraception, angering abortion rights advocates while pleasing anti-abortion activists... 'If it only dealt with contraception, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it also in some cases terminates a life after conception, and therefore it ceases in that case to be a contraceptive provision,' he said." (Theo Emery, "Romney Vetos [Sic] Emergency Contraception Bill," The Associated Press, 7/25/05)

- Pro-Life Leaders Praised The Move. "Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, a national anti-abortion group, called the veto 'fantastic.' 'I think any candidate that establishes themselves as respecting human life in the earliest stages – and that's what Gov. Romney has done here – would certainly be appealing to pro-life voters,' he said. ... Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said that anti-abortion voters will look favorably on the governor's decision. 'I would think that would be a byproduct of this, sure, that pro-lifers would appreciate his stand. It would seem logical. Every time someone votes our way, our grass roots and certainly the organization is appreciative of that,' she said." (Theo Emery, "Romney Vetos [Sic] Emergency Contraception Bill," The Associated Press, 7/25/05)

FACT: In An Editorial At The Time, Governor Romney Explained His Veto, And Declared "I Am Pro-Life":

"Yesterday I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception. ...

"I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. ..." (Governor Mitt Romney, Op/Ed, "Why I Vetoed Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)

Erick at RedState seems impressed by this quick response by Romney's Team.

Romney in Montgomery on Feb 9th!!!

In the article quoted in the last posting it looks like Romney is scheduled to be in Montgomery on Feb 9th to deliver the Keynote Speech to the State Republican Executive Committee. Sounds like a great opportunity for GOP leaders to get to know Romney better . . . I'm sure they'll be impressed!

Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney spending time, money in Alabama

This AP article,has some interesting information about Romney's activities in Alabama. Looks like he's ready to take on McCain and battle it out in one of the newer early primary states!

Romney, has been spending lots of money in Alabama and will soon spend more time in the state.

Romney used his Commonwealth PAC to make $143,500 in campaign contributions to Republican candidates and party organizations during this year's elections, campaign finance reports show.

Romney is scheduled to deliver the keynote speech when the State Republican Executive Committee meets Feb. 9 in Montgomery. He visited Alabama once during 2006, appearing in Tuscaloosa at dinner honoring U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

Montgomery lobbyist Claire Austin, who is advising Romney's PAC on the Alabama political landscape, said Alabamians will be seeing a lot of Romney in the future.

"He's like a rock star. He's got it going," she told The Birmingham News.

Romney's PAC contributions in Alabama were larger than those of another likely GOP candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, whose Straight Talk America PAC distributed $117,750 to Alabama candidates and party committees in 2006.

. . .

The interest in Alabama stems from the Legislature moving up the state's 2008 presidential primary from June to February, when it will be among the earliest in the nation.

Romney's Southern Team Grows! Neighbor State Georgia Has Strong Team Building

From the Commonwealth PAC site:

ROMNEY’S PAC ADDS TO SOUTHERN TEAM

November 29, 2006 - Governor Mitt Romney’s Commonwealth PAC today announced Eric Tanenblatt has been added to its Southern Advisory Team and will focus particularly in Georgia. In addition, Tanenblatt will lead the Georgia Finance Team for the PAC.

“As the Commonwealth PAC continues to look for ways to assist Republican organizations on the state and local levels, I’m pleased to have such a fine team in Georgia,” Romney said. “Eric Tanenblatt has proven to be a very successful political operative in Georgia for nearly two decades. I appreciate his willingness to lead our Georgia team.”

Tanenblatt said, “Governor Romney has a refreshing optimistic vision for America. His experience tackling challenging issues in his business career, at the '02 Olympics and most recently as Governor, demonstrates his ability to lead in difficult times. I appreciate this opportunity with the Commonwealth PAC.”

Eric Tanenblatt is a Senior Managing Director at McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP. He was the Finance Chair for Governor Sonny Perdue’s 2006 successful re-election campaign. He was also the Georgia Victory Chair and Bush Ranger in the 2004 cycle. From 2003 to 2004, Tanenblatt served as Governor Perdue’s Chief of Staff. In 2000, he was the Georgia State Chairman for President Bush’s campaign. Prior to that, he served as Senior Political Advisor to the late U.S. Senator Paul Coverdell from 1989 to 2000.

Other members of the Commonwealth PAC’s Georgia Finance Team include:

Nancy Coverdell, wife of the late U.S. Senator Paul Coverdell

Fred Cooper, Chairman of the G8 Summit Host Committee in 2004, Bush Pioneer in 2004, Georgia Victory Chair in 2002, General Chairman for Bush 2000, Georgia State Chairman for George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 1988 and 1992, and a successful businessman (Cooper Capital) and longtime Republican leader.

James Edenfield, Georgia Victory Chair in 2006, Bush Pioneer in 2004, Bush Finance Chair in 2000, and Chief Executive Officer of American Software.

Joe Rogers, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Waffle House, a successful businessman and longtime Republican fundraiser.

Romney Visits Crimson-Town: Event honors Senator Richard Shelby

This article, from a while back, detailed Romney's appearance in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Shelby, the honoree at the Tuscaloosa Republican Party's inaugural Lincoln-Reagan dinner Sunday, predicted Romney would run.

"I believe the political season is beginning to warm up, not only in this state, but the presidential race is going to open up a little bit later and this is a warmup for that," Shelby said.

"We know you are going to be in it, we believe you are going to be in it, although it is not official yet," said Shelby, a Tuscaloosa resident.

The Republican senator said Romney has a lot to offer and has done an outstanding job in Massachusetts. But Shelby was not ready to offer any endorsements for 2008.